It's worth remembering that words aren't static over time and the negative connotations you attach to the word 'cult' wouldn't have existed for the early romans and greeks we get the word from. Early archaeologists and historians, being gigantic geeks for classical civilizations, basically copied the meaning during the renaissance / early modern period and that's where the modern term-of-art comes from. If it helps, you can understand it as "specific practices of worship by a group, especially if they're non-christian and non-western". There's some historical pejorative implications from colonial mindsets, but that's a different discussion.
I understand how words and meanings can change over generations and how some words fall out of favor. Here in Texas we have not had good luck with groups described as cults over the last few decades and if you grew up here in a fundamentalist Christian family watching TV preachers every Sunday and a large part of the week then you would not have a favorable opinion of them and would be likely to describe them as cults.
As an American, I understand that and even avoid using 'cult' in my own work because of the pejorative connotations. However, it's a term of art for certain disciplines and the intended meaning should be understood.
I understand the origin of the word but in common usage it has different connotations.
You are apparently familiar with archaeology since you have commented several times on this thread and it is possible from some posts to infer that you may be familiar with operations in this region. If that is accurate how do you interpret these rock structures?
I have included one that I found [0] out near Khaybar on Google Earth. I studied it for quite a while and decided that though it is probably multiple overlapping structures that may not be related, it could be interpreted as I have in my own analysis. What are your thoughts on this? I am wrong I know but this jumped out at me from this complex arrangement.
I'm not really familiar with Arabian archaeology (never been my area), but my initial guess on only the image is that it looks like a hunting funnel/pen (often called 'kites'). I have absolutely no idea whether that's accurate and someone who's actually done groundwork there would have a better idea.
Also worth noting that kites are a separate phenomenon from the mustatil the article is about.
I am familiar with kites though it was more in the context of fish traps. I had seen some ancient examples in other places out on the west coast of the US and had read of their use by Native Americans in rivers and bays to catch fish sustainably.
While rafting out in the western US a few years back I built one on the river from memory using driftwood poles, rocks carefully positioned, etc to funnel fish into the shallow water. I didn't catch anything but, like fishing with any form of fishing pole, that really wasn't the point.
I'm not an archaeologist though I have followed discoveries for years and it all interests me. I love history. I do get annoyed when something new is discovered and the same narratives are applied to make it appear that the people were somehow less sophisticated than ourselves. They made do with the things at hand and had a better grasp of local resources and how to use them sustainably than we will. Or maybe they didn't and we keep repeating the same mistakes they made to the point where it is a genetic defect among humans by now.
